snowbunny

Two points: who's going to get the health insurance cover? Tennessee doesn't offer the same kind of plans in place in Massachusetts or Hawaii. You may find you cannot afford to be self-employed and work only four days a week AND afford health insurance. And that's if both of you are insurable. God forbid you have a child with serious medical problems.

Second point: who decides on expenditures for the kid(s)? They are hideously expensive little creatures even if you scrimp. Diapers/nappies alone are at least $50 per month. If you scrimp and use cloth, who's going to do that extra laundry? You will not be able to find daycare that will take a child for three days a week and charge you less than if you were there five days -- not a decent daycare anyway. So for an infant that's at least $700 per month, more if you hire a private caregiver. And we haven't even started on furniture, clothing, toys, carseats....

Seriously, I'd love to hear how you are doing post-kid to see if you've managed to pull this off.... if you have done it, I can learn something from your methods. If not.... I don't need to know, because I've seen many, many families struggling with these issues, including my brother and sister-in-law whose daughter will be a year old soon.

Elvira

Possibly the most depressing part in this thread, for me, has been the realisation that some people not only do not value the contribution to society that parents make in bringing up the next generation, but that they actually consider us selfish for having children.

Irn-bru

I know but you do that now people will sadly look at you!!

Its the same in the UK sadly now. Good post

Rete

Evidentally as she is going by the AAP instead of her own experience. Mine and now my daughter's is that a baby bonds almost instantly with their mother and father. As for breastfeeding, two years is a wee bit long to be breastfeeding IMHO. Wyatt was a year on Saturday and he is using the breast only for comfort and not for nourishment at nap and bedtime. So he no longer has a need or desire for mother's milk but the need and desire for mother's arms.

AmerLisa

Wow! This thread is still going? 16 pages later and has anyone figured out whether things are right or wrong with relationships, parenting and working?

Sally

No

Leslie

I appreciate your response and I apologize for calling you a loser.

The people you've known have colored your view and that is only natural. I've known all sorts of people and the older I get the less I tend to generalize.

Honestly, I've only known a very few stay-at-home Mom's in my life and they were nothing like you describe. Most of them go stir crazy and lose their identity in the shadow of their husband - and that is very hard on them. On the other hand, staying at home is simply not an option for many American women - for the obvious financial reasons. The women that I've known to stay at home usually wore the same clothes for years (and their husbands did as well) so that their kids could have more. Another thing to think about is - some men really want their wives to stay at home because they know that they will not have to worry about the quality of care their child receives.

Again, I apologize for jumping on your post. There is really nothing wrong with your plans or hopes. It was the accusatory way you seemed to blame women that rubbed me the wrong way. If you'd have said something like ..... "Due to our goals - my wife and I have decided it's better for both of us to work." I wouldn't have blinked an eye.

BigDavyG

Your are hard to believe - you really are.

Always trying to emotionalise the debate.

Please point out where anyone has been accused of being 'selfish for having children' anywhere in this thread.

You need to start being able to back up your trite soundbites with evidence - so far every time I have challenged you to do this you have summarily failed to do so.

snowbunny

There are scores of places where parents are accused of putting their needs before their children's or vice versa and spoiling them, scamming off those who don't have children (whether through tax cuts/breaks, subsidies, childless workers working harder to cover workers with children) and having "unrealistic" expectations of their employer's "generosity" in providing maternity leave....

....these things don't come across as selfish to you?

As a survivor of the first Internet (pre-Web) wars on this subject I can assure you that there are people out there who despise children and do not want people to have any. They have coined the word "childfree" and while most people who identify as childfree are simply stating the choice in life they've made, many want EVERYONE to choose it.

Try:

http://childfreeghetto.blogspot.com/
http://www.childfree.net/
http://www.childfree.com.au/
http://www.nokidding.net/
http://www.kiddingaside.net/

and there's so much more.

Silly Sod

Didn't really answer any of the actual points there Davy. Nice evasion. Margaret Thatcher was an analogy, not the actual point I was making. But I notice you never seem to answer any of the real points made here anyway if they are too complex. I may be wrong but you come across as a misogynistic middle management wannabe. Are you infertile or just too young too know any better? I only ask because you seem to have issues regarding children.

Sally

We need more of these

BigDavyG

You asked one question about me claiming child benefit if I was in the UK - the rest of your post was a series of points some of which you suffixed with a question mark.

All I have done on this thread (apart from being short with idiots like you) is advocate some sense of personal responsibility, but if you insist on getting personal you come across as someone content to live hand to mouth, relying on the charity of others, blaming some old woman for your woes and shortcomings.
Fair play to you - personally I have some pride and self-respect which prevents me from behaving like that and so I will have to plan and save for my future.

What is it that worries you so much for taking responsibility for your own actions - are you afraid that if your life goes down the pan that you will have no-one to blame but yourself. Maybe you're better off having the government, employers, in fact just somebody, anybody else to blame. Maybe if I were you I'd behave the same way too. Thankfully I'm not.

Shahlax

I may quit working, it's hard to decide now before the baby is born. But if I do quit, it will be very hard to get a part-time job in a new place. I haven't seen any part-time jobs advertised in my field in the last 18 months. It's easier to stay with the same employer and come back part-time as they already know you and usually want you back. I guess that's part of the point of maternity leave, it gives women the chance to come back to a job they like.

I can only take 4 and a half months off after birth, after that I have to come back or quit. I do not have the luxury of 6-12 months.

Shahlax

I agree 2 years is a very long time and unheard of these days! My point about the AAP is that their recommendation will only work for stay-at-home mums. It doesn't fit in with the US maternity leave policy in the slightest.

It is my first baby and I will try nursing but time will tell how it works out.

Neathborn

You may want to check out your state's policy regarding time off to breastfeed and/or pump milk. For example, in Minnesota, employers are supposed to let their employees take some time out to do this. I had 2 breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon in addition to lunch and was able to continue breastfeeding for 7 months. I would have continued, but health issues prevented me from doing so. The company I worked for was very supportive, but I'll be honest, it wasn't easy. Although I was supposed to be provided with a place to pump milk, it was a big supply closet and I lost count of the number of times someone would knock on the door and try to come in (even with a note posted on the door "do not disturb")